Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

Election 'dark money' haunts democracy

The plan by the Koch brothers' political network to spend $889 million on the 2016 elections is certainly stunning. That figure is likely to meet or exceed the amount spent by the two major political parties.

Even more appalling, however, is that much of the money will be shielded from public disclosure, making it impossible to know which candidates' favors are being bought, who is buying them, or what their purpose is.

Charles and David Koch have built a network dedicated to influencing politics and policy discretely, or as discretely as possible while spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Their network is structured primarily as a series of non-profit groups, which, because they claim to be close cousins of charitable organizations, are shielded from disclosure laws.

The two brothers — collectively worth $83 billion, according to Forbes — are hardly the only players in this field. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson played an outsize role in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. And Democratic financier Tom Steyer has vowed to spend $100 million to raise the profile of climate change as an issue.

But with their enormous plan for 2016, the Kochs are entering a league of their own.

As long as Citizens United v. FEC, the 5-year-old Supreme Court ruling that threw out certain limits on political contributions, continues to be the law of the land, tighter disclosure laws are needed.

Getting them won't be easy. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others who used to support disclosure now contend such laws are a violation of donors' First Amendment rights.

Absent congressional action, the Obama administration could move administratively to beef up disclosure requirements for publicly listed corporations. But corporate giving has not changed dramatically since Citizens United. Corporations have customers and shareholders, and they know that secret political activity is likely to be discovered. Many blue-chip companies have even voluntarily decided to disclose.

Wealthy individuals like the Kochs are another matter. In a few short years, they have dramatically reshaped the nation's democracy. Their below-the-radar injection of nearly a billion dollars into the next election is further testament to a political system that's out of kilter.